9 ms·

The Moderna vaccine can cause immune-mediated hepatitis

dekhn 5y ago
I have trouble understanding why people post articles like this. IE, what's the ulterior motive? Is your goal to reduce trust in vaccines? A good faith attempt to show that there are a very small but detectable number of adverse outcomes from vaccines? Whatever it is: a paper like this doesn't demonstrate anything like that. It's a case observation with n=1 and it actually shows nothing of the sort. It's as close to nonscientific as a doctor can get and still publish in the literature.
- oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Vaccine mandates by the government are legal but there are restrictions. Jacobson vs. Massachuestts, but of course, see today's ruling (which is being misreported; it's correct that OSHA doesn't ahve the latitude to do this, but the president has the absolute right to vaccine mandates nationally. he just hasn't done it, and given the omicron experience, I doubt he will). I'm not sure why those cities have those policies and I don't expect them to stand much longer given the relatively weak protection provided.
    - oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago
      - dekhn 5y ago
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- tomohawk 5y ago
  People post for many reasons other than because they want to push a narrative. Perhaps its just interesting and they want to see what people say. Interesting things are worth posting even when you may not agree with it or even know anything about it. Posting is like asking, "what do HNers think about this?"
  - dekhn 5y ago
    - oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago
  - 0x500x79 5y ago
    Maybe, this is also a new user pushing a bare minimum paper with a headline that denotes safety issues with the vaccine. We should be actively looking for scientific outlook, but the top of this comment chain is correct in asking questions about the motives when we see stuff like this pop-up continually on HN from groups of people.
    - oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago
- odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
  Not the op, and didn't read the link, so no clue what it's validity. BUT will say again, I am pro vaccines and vaccinated, but I still think the possible side effects are being downplayed in the media/state. I posted in another thread, but after one month, I am still having issues that are for sure linked to my booster shot. No-one told me about any of these possible side effects, but after suffering from them, and talking openly about it with many peopkle, I found others had exactly the same issues as I have after their shots (Pfizer if it helps anyone).
  - dekhn 5y ago
    The issue of side effects being downplayed by the media is entirely a response by public health and media to the large amount of disinformation about vaccines. It was a calculus that was identified and decided on quite some time ago- the reasoning being most people need to hear a simple, straightforward and consistent message to be compliant. The media and public health leadership has to work on a very thin "knife's edge" when communicating with the public. They have to do 10X the work to debunk garbage than the people have to work to dissemination garbage. And then, a reasonable set of people who do have vaccines problems end up in the middle. The symptoms I had when I had combined Flu/Pneumonia were: could not use left arm for a week, felt super-sick and couldn'tr work for a week. I know that's probably better than getitng a bad flu or pneumonia, but my doctor couldn't even care. She was just happy I got vaccinated. i do think that is a problem. But it's a different problem and raising that and having a rational discussion about it is not something that can happen in a venue like hacker news, or really any social media.
    - throw10920 5y ago
      > The issue of side effects being downplayed by the media is entirely a response by public health and media to the large amount of disinformation about vaccines. That's your personal belief that may or may not be representative of reality. Another possible belief that one might have, that you can find evidence for in reality, is that side effects are being downplayed in order to push vaccine mandates through as a way of exerting political control and/or profits for certain organizations (e.g. Pfizer, which has done a lot of extremely questionable things in the past, like a lot of large pharma companies). > the reasoning being most people need to hear a simple, straightforward and consistent message to be compliant. ...and this line only adds more evidence to the second belief, as it's exactly what entities wanting control want - people to be "compliant" for its own sake, regardless of reality, ethics, or reason. In any case, downplaying the side effects is unethical and obviously wrong.
- throw10920 5y ago
  > I have trouble understanding why people post articles like this Here's a good reason: because there's no obvious reason why the vaccine should result in immune-mediated hepatitis (unlike, say, an immune response after receiving it, which is both explainable and (somewhat) desirable). HN is about curiosity and novelty, and this is curious indeed.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    From an n=1 study? it's far more likely to be spurious noise than real.
- ostenning 5y ago
  What is an n=1 study?
  - dekhn 5y ago
    This paper is based on a single patient. Normally, in any sort of health study, you want to work with a large population for statistical reasons. However, for many practical reasons (such a very rare event like this) you can't do that. While there are statistical techniques to deal with small n studies ("If nobody dies, did anything go wrong?" from Glantz's stats book), mainstream science never makes a strong assertion (as this paper does) of causality. My read of the paper does not find any evidence truly supporting their assertion, but this isn't really uncommon, doctors publish case reports like this all the time with the hope that they're the first person to actually report on a real problem (and hope all the other times they reported are conveniently ignored). And, of course, as a truly honest scientist, I will say: it's entirely possible they did find a situation where it occurred. It may be that all my complaining is actually against a legitimate problem. But, to be honest, when all the data is evaluated holistically, it is unlikely that this is a major concern. And the real problem is that somebody is going to go share this with some website that publishes "COVID vaccine causes hepatitus" and then a whole bunch of people won't get vaccinated.
- Jimmc414 5y ago
  I wish people would stop censoring information needed to make informed consent. If the study is non scientific then point that out, don't try to censor the post. You hurt your own cause by hiding information from intelligent people because that is what makes them suspicious.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    Intelligent people, trying to form their own opinions, aren't doing so from the random assortment of articles that appear on popular web sites. They're reading the primary literature directly, rather than letting the Web pick and choose the articles that it finds interesting. The vast majority of people aren't capable of that. They're usually taking secondary or tertiary sources, as collected by their favorite aggregators. That's not informed consent, regardless of the conclusion they come to. Intelligent people recognize that they're not surveying the primary literature. They instead have to trust some informed source. That source must, among other things, pick things that inform rather than mislead. It can't feature every scrap of data -- you might as well just go to the primary sources. So what makes me suspicious is people claiming "censorship", because most of the time it means "here is a thing that confirms my biases, and I'll ignore all of the things that contradict my biases even though I'm not as expert as I imagine I am". If you want the facts, they're out there on the NIH web site. If you want HN to pick and choose facts for you, then you're welcome to, but do not fool yourself into believing that it informs consent.
oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago
- dekhn 5y ago
onphonenow 5y ago
Wow, that's a pretty compelling N=1 study. this guy goes from totally healthy to acute liver injury, each expression of illness and injury tied very closely to vaccine dose!
- mikem170 5y ago
  Autoimmune issues, including those related to vaccines, are not well understood. I looked into this when I saw that many people were having covid-like adverse reactions to the vaccines. The only thing I found was that when the immune system is activated that collateral damage is possible.
  - onphonenow 5y ago
    Right - they point out the pathway. It does sound like you might have hepatitis already, so the vaccine is just in injury pathway. Or you might have some other (small) issue and immune response makes it a big one. I find this a bit plausible because the vaccine is designed to trigger an immune response (generally).

I have trouble understanding why people post articles like this. IE, what's the ulterior motive? Is your goal to reduce trust in vaccines? A good faith attempt to show that there are a very small but detectable number of adverse outcomes from vaccines? Whatever it is: a paper like this doesn't demonstrate anything like that. It's a case observation with n=1 and it actually shows nothing of the sort. It's as close to nonscientific as a doctor can get and still publish in the literature.

oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago
- dekhn 5y ago
  Vaccine mandates by the government are legal but there are restrictions. Jacobson vs. Massachuestts, but of course, see today's ruling (which is being misreported; it's correct that OSHA doesn't ahve the latitude to do this, but the president has the absolute right to vaccine mandates nationally. he just hasn't done it, and given the omicron experience, I doubt he will). I'm not sure why those cities have those policies and I don't expect them to stand much longer given the relatively weak protection provided.
  - oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago
    - dekhn 5y ago
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
tomohawk 5y ago
People post for many reasons other than because they want to push a narrative. Perhaps its just interesting and they want to see what people say. Interesting things are worth posting even when you may not agree with it or even know anything about it. Posting is like asking, "what do HNers think about this?"
- dekhn 5y ago
  - oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago
- 0x500x79 5y ago
  Maybe, this is also a new user pushing a bare minimum paper with a headline that denotes safety issues with the vaccine. We should be actively looking for scientific outlook, but the top of this comment chain is correct in asking questions about the motives when we see stuff like this pop-up continually on HN from groups of people.
  - oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago
odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
Not the op, and didn't read the link, so no clue what it's validity. BUT will say again, I am pro vaccines and vaccinated, but I still think the possible side effects are being downplayed in the media/state. I posted in another thread, but after one month, I am still having issues that are for sure linked to my booster shot. No-one told me about any of these possible side effects, but after suffering from them, and talking openly about it with many peopkle, I found others had exactly the same issues as I have after their shots (Pfizer if it helps anyone).
- dekhn 5y ago
  The issue of side effects being downplayed by the media is entirely a response by public health and media to the large amount of disinformation about vaccines. It was a calculus that was identified and decided on quite some time ago- the reasoning being most people need to hear a simple, straightforward and consistent message to be compliant. The media and public health leadership has to work on a very thin "knife's edge" when communicating with the public. They have to do 10X the work to debunk garbage than the people have to work to dissemination garbage. And then, a reasonable set of people who do have vaccines problems end up in the middle. The symptoms I had when I had combined Flu/Pneumonia were: could not use left arm for a week, felt super-sick and couldn'tr work for a week. I know that's probably better than getitng a bad flu or pneumonia, but my doctor couldn't even care. She was just happy I got vaccinated. i do think that is a problem. But it's a different problem and raising that and having a rational discussion about it is not something that can happen in a venue like hacker news, or really any social media.
  - throw10920 5y ago
    > The issue of side effects being downplayed by the media is entirely a response by public health and media to the large amount of disinformation about vaccines. That's your personal belief that may or may not be representative of reality. Another possible belief that one might have, that you can find evidence for in reality, is that side effects are being downplayed in order to push vaccine mandates through as a way of exerting political control and/or profits for certain organizations (e.g. Pfizer, which has done a lot of extremely questionable things in the past, like a lot of large pharma companies). > the reasoning being most people need to hear a simple, straightforward and consistent message to be compliant. ...and this line only adds more evidence to the second belief, as it's exactly what entities wanting control want - people to be "compliant" for its own sake, regardless of reality, ethics, or reason. In any case, downplaying the side effects is unethical and obviously wrong.
throw10920 5y ago
> I have trouble understanding why people post articles like this Here's a good reason: because there's no obvious reason why the vaccine should result in immune-mediated hepatitis (unlike, say, an immune response after receiving it, which is both explainable and (somewhat) desirable). HN is about curiosity and novelty, and this is curious indeed.
- dekhn 5y ago
  From an n=1 study? it's far more likely to be spurious noise than real.
ostenning 5y ago
What is an n=1 study?
- dekhn 5y ago
  This paper is based on a single patient. Normally, in any sort of health study, you want to work with a large population for statistical reasons. However, for many practical reasons (such a very rare event like this) you can't do that. While there are statistical techniques to deal with small n studies ("If nobody dies, did anything go wrong?" from Glantz's stats book), mainstream science never makes a strong assertion (as this paper does) of causality. My read of the paper does not find any evidence truly supporting their assertion, but this isn't really uncommon, doctors publish case reports like this all the time with the hope that they're the first person to actually report on a real problem (and hope all the other times they reported are conveniently ignored). And, of course, as a truly honest scientist, I will say: it's entirely possible they did find a situation where it occurred. It may be that all my complaining is actually against a legitimate problem. But, to be honest, when all the data is evaluated holistically, it is unlikely that this is a major concern. And the real problem is that somebody is going to go share this with some website that publishes "COVID vaccine causes hepatitus" and then a whole bunch of people won't get vaccinated.
Jimmc414 5y ago
I wish people would stop censoring information needed to make informed consent. If the study is non scientific then point that out, don't try to censor the post. You hurt your own cause by hiding information from intelligent people because that is what makes them suspicious.
- jfengel 5y ago
  Intelligent people, trying to form their own opinions, aren't doing so from the random assortment of articles that appear on popular web sites. They're reading the primary literature directly, rather than letting the Web pick and choose the articles that it finds interesting. The vast majority of people aren't capable of that. They're usually taking secondary or tertiary sources, as collected by their favorite aggregators. That's not informed consent, regardless of the conclusion they come to. Intelligent people recognize that they're not surveying the primary literature. They instead have to trust some informed source. That source must, among other things, pick things that inform rather than mislead. It can't feature every scrap of data -- you might as well just go to the primary sources. So what makes me suspicious is people claiming "censorship", because most of the time it means "here is a thing that confirms my biases, and I'll ignore all of the things that contradict my biases even though I'm not as expert as I imagine I am". If you want the facts, they're out there on the NIH web site. If you want HN to pick and choose facts for you, then you're welcome to, but do not fool yourself into believing that it informs consent.

oakeyoakdeyz 5y ago

dekhn 5y ago

onphonenow 5y ago

Wow, that's a pretty compelling N=1 study. this guy goes from totally healthy to acute liver injury, each expression of illness and injury tied very closely to vaccine dose!

mikem170 5y ago
Autoimmune issues, including those related to vaccines, are not well understood. I looked into this when I saw that many people were having covid-like adverse reactions to the vaccines. The only thing I found was that when the immune system is activated that collateral damage is possible.
- onphonenow 5y ago
  Right - they point out the pathway. It does sound like you might have hepatitis already, so the vaccine is just in injury pathway. Or you might have some other (small) issue and immune response makes it a big one. I find this a bit plausible because the vaccine is designed to trigger an immune response (generally).